Author
Topic: 5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance (Read 29679 times)

smirkypants

I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers. I own a 5D3 and a d800 and it really seems to me that the folks at Nikon really tried harder. I originally bought the d800 for a specific purpose but now I find myself using it with a nice prime that I also bought. I really don't get the feeling using it that anyone at Nikon said "we better not do X because it'll cut into our sales of Y." My only major complaint is that it has a slow FPS, but then again it's moving massive files around.

Using my 5D3 I don't get the impression that Canon tried as hard as it might have. It really reminds me of American car makers back in the day trying to focus as much as possible on maximizing profits and not making the best cars that it could. We all know how well that went.

So anyway, Canon. Try harder. You deserve all the sh*t people are giving you. The 5D3 is a solid machine, but it's not great. There were so many missed opportunities. You probably could have made something very similar in 2010 but didn't. Try to build the best stuff you can and price it aggressively. Thanks.

I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers

All the decisions that a corporation makes are based on maximizing profits. Not some, not most but all. The only difference is that some get it right while most get it wrong (relative to others it the same market).

Now, the reason the D800 looks so nice on paper is not because over there the engineers have more sway than at Canon and it isn't because of some romantic notion of sacrificing profits to make photographers happy. It is rather because they knew that without some big wow factor they won't be able to challenge Canon's overwhelming market share in this segment. And that's exactly what we expect underdogs to do. In the end, if they manage to pull it off like Nikon seems to have managed, we all profit in the end.

And make no mistake. Only time will tell, but if Nikon does manage to overthrow Canon this time around, we will have the same exact conversation, only in reverse, in 3-4 years.

Canon is likely quite happy with the performance of the 5D3; it's selling like crack, it actually does do a lot of things considerably better than the 5D2, at least for most of the crowd who asked for those improvements.

I sure hope they are listening to all the forum griping tho, as well as those of us who've also bothered to let them know directly, that we expected better overall sensor performance from them, especially at the low ISO end.

I really think Canon needs to look at what the competition has brought to the market and pay attention to its loyal customers who'd like some of the same without having to buy it from the competition.

There's one way to help them do that.... TELL THEM.

Because right now, the following competition products have an edge in low ISO IQ.

Nikon D800, D4, D7000, D5100 and Pentax K5. The freshly announced Nikon D3200 is also gonna make some waves with its 24MP crop-sensor. If it can retain the clean shadows the other bodies listed can provide, plus the simple market appeal of all those pixels at a very competitive price, it's going to steer some attention away from Canon.

Ricoh-Pentax is also about to start a renewed marketing campaign as well. They have some great products that are a bit different in some ways, very creative. I've been thinking of playing with some of them myself. (That little Q is just so cute.. and capable.)

This has been a one-horse race for a while but Canon's jockey is about to start feeling some hot breathe from the competition closing in on his backside.

Even Harley Davidson eventually had to start building better bikes in the face of the competition.

I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers

All the decisions that a corporation makes are based on maximizing profits. Not some, not most but all. The only difference is that some get it right while most get it wrong (relative to others it the same market).

Now, the reason the D800 looks so nice on paper is not because over there the engineers have more sway than at Canon and it isn't because of some romantic notion of sacrificing profits to make photographers happy. It is rather because they knew that without some big wow factor they won't be able to challenge Canon's overwhelming market share in this segment. And that's exactly what we expect underdogs to do. In the end, if they manage to pull it off like Nikon seems to have managed, we all profit in the end.

And make no mistake. Only time will tell, but if Nikon does manage to overthrow Canon this time around, we will have the same exact conversation, only in reverse, in 3-4 years.

another observation I have on this topic is that Nikon stayed focus on their core segment: still photographer and video comes as a bonus, but because they play catch up on the video side they did not hold out.

On the other hand I feel Canon is getting distracted by their desire to bridge the DSLR into the video market. This is all noble, but could be dangerous in the long run if they continue to cripple their model because they need to keep certain feature for other model in the line up...just a thought...

On the other hand I feel Canon is getting distracted by their desire to bridge the DSLR into the video market. This is all noble, but could be dangerous in the long run if they continue to cripple their model because they need to keep certain feature for other model in the line up...just a thought...

+1This is a road they've chosen to increase sales, of course. and why not?But, they do seem to have languished behind other Mfr's who have kept still image quality as their top priority. That and the technical requirements for doing video seem to be compromizing still IQ at a hardware level.

Logged

stevenrrmanir

The problem that I have with Canon is that they are doing this intentionally - release incremental upgrades to their bodies. Take a look at their bodies starting from the xxD and upward. Small upgrades that are not worth upgrading for the IQ. The 60D is a step backwards from the 40D in IQ, as an example. The 7D is a pretty nice camera, but does poor in low light conditions. Why? Look at the 5D MKIII video - identical video quality as that of MKII - not that I care for video. If I want super video quality beyond MKII or MKIII I'll get a dedicated 1080p 60fps camcorder for $800 like the TM900. The video on this thing is beyond anything the $3500 is capable of!

My complaint their bodies is that they are NOT trying to outdo the competition. Nikon, contrary, has released very impressive bodies. I also love Pentax K5 - kicks 7D in the teeth for MUCH cheaper!

Canon needs to get real upgrades in bodies and not drag their legs (intentionally) to maximize profits. I have money to burn, and I will burn it by purchasing from Nikon because it seems they care about their bodies as much as their glass. Nikon has gained a lot of market share since when? Look it up... since they really started churning out great bodies people wanted to use! Yes, there will be a cat and mouse in the camera competition, but it looks like Canon has been the cat for a while now... I don't have time to wait until they release a real nice body with real upgrades for a decent price.

Canon will become the next Sony trying to "protect" their profits and not go out to attract more customers! Read up on why Sony is in deep doo-doo these since 2008... it is now time to pay the pipper (Sony)!

canon rumors FORUM

stevenrrmanir

can somebody compare a 5M MKIII to a 5D MKII image to convince us that it is worth spending $3500 for the body?

we are photographers for the PHOTOGRAPHY = we want IQ

so, convince me with two images (of the same subject under the same conditions) that 5D MKIII is worth the cost...

(5D MKIII stock is intentionally kept low to increase demand - a ploy from Canon to make you think it is selling like hot cakes... NOT!)

PS. oh yeah - wanted to get the 5D MKIII - was hoping for a $2500 entry price for the body alone. in Dec. 2011 the 5D MKII was $2000 in Canada. Said that I will not buy 5 year old technology. Then suddenly the cost of 5D MKII goes up to $2400 in Canada when the 5D MKIII gets released at over $3500... WTF? since when? what is the intention with that price hike? history dictates that old bodies will come down in price then be phased out when newer models come out (ie. 5D MKII gets cheaper than $2000 here in Canada with the release of 5D MKIII) - but it looks like Canon knows where th real demand is... 5D MKII - and so to make more money, they do this! so, how is this good for the consumer? should I be thankful for them for this? NO because I am not a fanboy, nor am I Canon zombie - I want a cheap 5D MKII!!!!

I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers

All the decisions that a corporation makes are based on maximizing profits. Not some, not most but all. The only difference is that some get it right while most get it wrong (relative to others it the same market).

Now, the reason the D800 looks so nice on paper is not because over there the engineers have more sway than at Canon and it isn't because of some romantic notion of sacrificing profits to make photographers happy. It is rather because they knew that without some big wow factor they won't be able to challenge Canon's overwhelming market share in this segment. And that's exactly what we expect underdogs to do. In the end, if they manage to pull it off like Nikon seems to have managed, we all profit in the end.

And make no mistake. Only time will tell, but if Nikon does manage to overthrow Canon this time around, we will have the same exact conversation, only in reverse, in 3-4 years.

another observation I have on this topic is that Nikon stayed focus on their core segment: still photographer and video comes as a bonus, but because they play catch up on the video side they did not hold out.

On the other hand I feel Canon is getting distracted by their desire to bridge the DSLR into the video market. This is all noble, but could be dangerous in the long run if they continue to cripple their model because they need to keep certain feature for other model in the line up...just a thought...

smirkypants

All the decisions that a corporation makes are based on maximizing profits. Not some, not most but all.

Meh. You seek to distract. My point was that the 5D3 doesn't feel like Canon was trying to create the best product that it could. It's a fine machine. Yup. A solid effort that will sell lots. I'm sorry, though, the d800 is not a gimmick. I'm getting some superb shots. It's NOT just the megapixels. I'm getting amazing colors and really clean detail. This was a machine made by a company that was hungry.

I wanted to focus on corporate motivations with my post, not specific gearhead stuff, but I'm attaching this shot so you can see something. I could NEVER have gotten this shot on anything Canon. I was hand-holding this on my belly with an 200-400 f4 zoom shot at maybe 100 yards. I had it set to 1.2 crop factor which gave me a 25MP file. I then cropped about 2/3 of the file away and still have this detail. I would need at least a 600mm on a 16MP 1D4 to get that kind of detail, and then I would never have been able to hand hold it to run to the spot that I needed to get to to get this shot.

I didn't think I was going to, but I'm selling my 1D4 and 400/2.8. I don't see myself ever using it again. Sure I only shoot 5fps with the D800, but those 5 shots are better. A lot better.

If I want super video quality beyond MKII or MKIII I'll get a dedicated 1080p 60fps camcorder for $800 like the TM900. The video on this thing is beyond anything the $3500 is capable of!

Oh really. I guess that's why they used 5D2s in House and 7Ds in Black Swan, because they couldn't get their hands on a Panasonic camcorder?

The TM900 is great for the money, no doubt, and yes in terms of resolution, autofocus and lack of jello effects, any 1080p consumer camcorder beats an HDSLR. But there are things like low light performance, DOF and access to pro / cinema lenses which are far more important for independent films, weddings and commercials.

All the decisions that a corporation makes are based on maximizing profits. Not some, not most but all.

Meh. You seek to distract. My point was that the 5D3 doesn't feel like Canon was trying to create the best product that it could. It's a fine machine. Yup. A solid effort that will sell lots. I'm sorry, though, the d800 is not a gimmick. I'm getting some superb shots. It's NOT just the megapixels. I'm getting amazing colors and really clean detail. This was a machine made by a company that was hungry.

I wanted to focus on corporate motivations with my post, not specific gearhead stuff, but I'm attaching this shot so you can see something. I could NEVER have gotten this shot on anything Canon. I was hand-holding this on my belly with an 200-400 f4 zoom shot at maybe 100 yards. I had it set to 1.2 crop factor which gave me a 25MP file. I then cropped about 2/3 of the file away and still have this detail. I would need at least a 600mm on a 16MP 1D4 to get that kind of detail, and then I would never have been able to hand hold it to run to the spot that I needed to get to to get this shot.

I didn't think I was going to, but I'm selling my 1D4 and 400/2.8. I don't see myself ever using it again. Sure I only shoot 5fps with the D800, but those 5 shots are better. A lot better.

You're missing good action shots with the D800 as evident by the photo you posted

smirkypants

You're missing good action shots with the D800 as evident by the photo you posted

Maybe! But it's a lot cheaper buying a d800 and having the extra reach from the megapixels than spending the $$$ on a longer lens, which is what Canon wanted me to do. I also have the added bonus of being able to take the lens wider to 200mm when the action comes closer.

I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers

All the decisions that a corporation makes are based on maximizing profits. Not some, not most but all. The only difference is that some get it right while most get it wrong (relative to others it the same market).

Now, the reason the D800 looks so nice on paper is not because over there the engineers have more sway than at Canon and it isn't because of some romantic notion of sacrificing profits to make photographers happy. It is rather because they knew that without some big wow factor they won't be able to challenge Canon's overwhelming market share in this segment. And that's exactly what we expect underdogs to do. In the end, if they manage to pull it off like Nikon seems to have managed, we all profit in the end.

You all have it wrong - I work in a very similar situation (handheld custom hardware platform with custom software and accessories, AND competitors ). The reality is that each product group in the respective companies have their particular cultures, and collectively they decided to produce these specific products. The reasons came from the different groups involved - marketing, management, R&D, Learning Products (documentation/training) and OF (order fulfillment - manufacturing). As to the specific group which pulled the shots - if there is one that stands above - it's unknowable (by us) and unimportant.

The OP is correct, Nikon looks to be working harder for us than Canon, who has been over charging and under delivering. It may change in a few years or may not.